I want to support your brother, but I refuse to support a single mother with 7 children , each one of them fathered by a different man ( who btw most likely is one welfare as well.) OK, I agree with you in spirit.. but how do you separate the single mother with 7 kids and not make it a matter of civil liberties? If you say take away their right to litigate about it, then you have to take away the right of the deserving to litigate about it, also. It just isn't that cut-and-dried. The only way to do it fairly is no social programs at all, or to give everyone access to social programs.
Politicians will pass laws that benefit the people who give them the money, and I we (voters) sit back and expect them to do the right thing, it will turn out poorly. LP politicians will do the exact same thing. That's the problem with a representative gov't, it relies on the representatives to do the right thing by the people, and in most cases they don't because it's not the right thing by themselves.
A question for you - Should I be forced to put my money into a program, when I could put it else where and be benefitted more? Depends. Do you care about your neighbors? If so, "forced" wouldn't be the word you used there. You'd be glad to help.
American society functioned just fine in the pre-FDR and pre-Depression days without Income tax and the "New Deal" programs. Therefore, it is naive to think that the only way to deal with these problems is to bring in Uncle Sam. American society was quite different before then. Wealth wasn't tied up in securities, it was more about hard goods and currency. When wealth started going to the securities markets (stocks, commodities, etc.) that's when the economy of the country went down the toilet. There's a natural boom and bust cycle with business, and when peoples' consumer power is tied up in the business' success or failure, then it becomes a completely self-feeding cycle.
I have yet to hear of any attempts to write religion into the US laws. The abolition of abortion rights is the big thing I'm thinking of. Such an effort attempts to legislate the fundamentalist/Catholic christian perspective.
Including "Under God" in the pledge, accomodates more than religion. It also accomodates atheists and agnostics. They might not have a "god" per say, but they do have a system of morals and values that can be seen as a "god." That's not true. "Under [capital G] God" refers directly to the Christian god. This clause was added during the McCarthy era, when the Christian belief was used to differentiate the USA from the Soviet Union.
The need is driven by games. I'm a gamer, so I have to have all of this bleeding edge hardware.
However, I regularly tell non-gamers that they shouldn't upgrade unless their PC doesn't do what they want it to do. The push for faster-better-stronger hardware is out of hand, the average consumer doesn't need any more than a 600mhz.. but they do need lots of RAM and a big hard drive.
These are all terrible things, however, they are not conservativism. They are fascism. I am not a fascist, I am a conservative. To see the kinds of things that I support, please visit the libertarian party website here: http://www.lp.org/issues/ [lp.org]
Personally, I think Ashcroft and Bush are christian fundamentalist fascists, as opposed to conservative republicans.
The problem with the LP is that there's too much emphasis on what government can't do. If you make the government as powerless as the LP wants it to be, there will be anarchy and Turner Diaries-reading militia types will carve out little fiefdoms and things will fall apart rapidly. You have to have a compromise of lack of government involvement and regulation of things that can be harmful. The LP wants no compromise and while it's a refreshing viewpoint it's not feasible.
Most people don't argue with things like the Clean Air Act (if they do, they are major shareholders in heavy industry) and other legislation that improves the quality of their life. There IS some legislation that makes things better for us.
However, I don't want these republicans writing their fundamentalist religion into our laws. I'm afraid that by the time all these nutcases are done the US Code is going to look more like the Bible than the new international version does.
If prayer in schools ever becomes mandatory I'm definitely getting the hell out of the USA. My kids aren't going to live under that kind of mental tyranny.
I understand that the LP is against such things, so this is sort of a non-sequitur.
I do have forsight. I have enough forsight to see that if our country continues spending outrageous amounts of money on goverment programs that should be privatized, we are going to be seriously harmed. Government doesn't, and can't, know what is best for people. Government involvement in our lives can only harm us. By limited our freedoms to do with our money as we please (social security, welface, etc.) we are not able to effectively run our own lives.
My brother was a star football player and baseball player. He led his high school football team to the state championship, and worked, if not at a prestigious job, at a steady job. He's now 36 and totally crippled by rheumatoid arthritis. It hit him suddenly. He's on SSI, gov't disability.
Now, if the government didn't spend the money on the disability program that keeps his kids fed and clothed, I wouldn't have my niece and nephews, and my brother would be even more miserable than he is now.
Oh, and if it wasn't for medicare, my grandmother probably wouldn't be alive today.
Don't tell me that government programs are wasteful. Some of these things have dire consequences, not just whether some kid from the projects gets to go to school in the suburbs or whether a wheat farmer in Iowa gets his loss covered because someone dumped a bunch of cheap Russian wheat on the market.
You obviously have no actual argument, since you are forced to resort to feeble attempts at insults. No, I attempt to insult you because I think you're a naive asshole kid.
yeah, and more americans are dying of stress-related illnesses than ever before. There used to be a CHOICE of whether you worked in a factory or in a professional job. Now, it's either go sit in a cube and be fucked daily by political mindless scum or be poor the rest of your life. That's not what I call progress.
Self-centeredness transcends party lines, it's a cultural thing. It does seem to align itself more with conservatism, because conservatism is all about protecting what's yours and to hell with everyone else. Liberalism at its base level is about sharing the wealth, but what they call liberal today is really just a more moderate conservatism.
The hawkish attitude does mainly manifest itself in conservative political parties. It's usually in response to whichever party happens to be a) the other majority and b) is in favor of peace. There have been times in the past where the democrats have been the hawks.
If my view is twisted, then what is correct? That which is proscribed by the Republican National Committee? Please enlighten me, o keeper of all wisdom.
I'm not arguing that you SHOULD behave one way or another. That's your decision to make. But you still have to follow the rules of wherever you live, unless you're willing to be an outlaw - if you can get away with it, more power to you.
It's a philosophy based on the Christian ethos that people are born good, become bad through sin, and redeem themselves, make themselves 'good' again, through "Christ-like" acts. Acts of charity are one of the things that the stories say Jesus did, so if you perform acts of charity, you're being like Jesus and you get +2 forgiveness points or whatever.
The fact of the matter is that people are animals, are born bad, and must be forced through some kind of threat to behave in an altruistic manner. Christianity threatens you with eternal damnation. The welfare system threatens you with jail time (if you don't pay your taxes). Etc.
Conservatives lose out, so why are they all for propping up unethical corporations? What about all the defense contractors that got fat under Reagan?
There's a difference in a line in the sand and the bottom falling out. If Enron hadn't killed themselves by faking everything about their business and spreading their revenue out among all the paper subsidiaries, they'd still be going. There was no great crackdown on them by righteous crusading Republicans, they went bankrupt. If they would have went bankrupt in 1999, you'd be saying Clinton drew the line in the sand. Oh wait, no you wouldn't.. everything that happens is the result of Reagan or one of the Bushes, Clinton didn't do anything - that's Republican doctrine, my bad.
A real conservative would accept this since it would be created a survival of the fittest type of situation. The strong, i.e. worthy people would find a way to survive, and the earth would be cleansed of the weak. I'm surprised you don't want your scenario to happen.
Some liberals are anti business, which is why people who jump to conclusions tend to call us communists.
I'm all for business.. but businesses, when they have massive levels of resources at their disposal, will abuse their power. Ever seen "Matewan"? Or "Roger and Me"? Corporations, when not held accountable, will become like feudal kingdoms. Let them eat cake and all that. If corporate accountability existed, the corporation would be a good thing.
Supply-side is another word for corporate welfare. But that's beside the point. Liberalism is not a dirty word to me. Neither is conservatism.
I'll have a nice day as long as your boys in Washington don't prohibit me from it. Since I'm not a Christian and registered independent, that might happen sometime soon. For a party that's against big government, there's sure a lot of infrastructure being put into place by these Republicans to control the people.
What the fuck are you smoking? Unions were busted left and right by the Reagan mafia and most of our heavy industry was shipped over to Japan and Europe because they refused to tax the imports. They invited the Japs in to buy our companies because the Yen was stronger than the Dollar. There's no national pride in Republicanism.
The inverse of charity is taxes. I'd respect your point if you had said anything about abolishing the federal income tax that currently pays for these programs.
What is the tax money going to be used for when the government gets out of the charity business? Is ALL of it going to go into CEO/board of director types' pockets instead of just some of it?
compared to the destruction of the american working class, which was performed by Reagan/Bush, a few hostages in Iran is peanuts. I'd rather not have those people and have some hope for the future. That was just a feel-good story.
The Soviet Union would have died anyway. It's head was too big to be supported by its body.
So you'd rather leave your parents and all the old people that built the world you lived in to die of illness and starvation so you can keep your excesses and build your portfolio. Got it.
Hope you're willing to volunteer for body detail, because there are a lot of boomers that will need to be buried.
"Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism
I would prefer this to a state that gradually declines into communism through over-taxation, an excess of government programs, and an oppressive government. "
Let's see what happens when your right to travel interstate is taken away because only terrorists and the military have to travel that far. Or when some cop runs your plates, connects to the national database of offenses, and sees that one time you set the high school bathroom trash can on fire, and decides to beat you and jail you as a possible offender. Or when the government disperses anti-war protestors at gunpoint ala the Italian Fascists.
You have no foresight and thus I conclude that you are a college student whose parents were yuppie scum.
Re:Why not? You just insulted Conservatives.
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
You can't tell me your desire to find a job was any kind of altruistic urge to pay the government back for your education. You needed to feed yourself and pay your rent, just like anyone else. Don't get on a high horse because you happen to feel guilty about taking the same assistance as the unwashed.
You have a point about the free handouts. The problem is that the GOP propoganda lumps job training and education into the same category as free money. It's all "Welfare".
Oh, and what happens when you give a CEO a free pass? Enron. Worldcom. The actions of Ken Lay and the Worldcom mafia destroyed the financial security of tens of thousands of people. If you don't understand, massive layoffs are not a solution to the problem of poverty.
What about Medicare? Should the elderly have been smart enough to save enough money to afford what doctors and pharmaceutical companies charge them? Or is there SOME room for compassion? What about social security?
See, there's the bullying attitude that is the trademark of conservativism.
"Liberals are two-faced"
"maybe liberalism truely is indefensible"
"the only way for liberal candidates to win elections is through obfuscation and redirection"
I'm so sick of anyone to the right of Clinton bringing up the Big Government shit. We would not be here if it wasn't for big government, you moron. Big government restored the US economy and allowed us and our allies to save Europe in WWII. Or would you rather still be living in Great Depression conditions just so that your precious Big Government wouldn't exist?
In the 50s, do you think Eisenhower was against big government? Under him the cabinet grew, two states were added (bringing with them more congressmen), and the military-industrial complex was born. Not to mention stuff like the House Un-American Activities committee, which makes the PATRIOT act and this HomeSec shit look like high school civics.
And don't even bring up the hypocritical bullshit about your people being morally superior. Your whole post was an obfuscation and redirection, Republican boy.
It's not the Muslims that want to blow us up, it's Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad and the PLO and Iraq and all the other perversions of Islam. The bad part is that the Republicans have, with their Crusade lines and their governmental philosophies, have set us up to be the Christian analog of Al Qaeda. I'm not a Christian and my country does not represent me on this point.
There are a few muslims in my office, and they're not sitting in their cubes building bombs.
Re:Why not? You just insulted Conservatives.
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
First of all, You will not change my mind by pointing out flaws in my language. So what if I don't express myself perfectly? I'm not claiming to be a master of the language such as Hemingway or Fitzgerald.
Secondly, this is fighting fire with fire. If the conservative pundits want to reduce it down schoolyard style bullying and name-calling, well, the people have demonstrated that they don't get it when one party tries to be above that (see the Clinton years for proof, where the location of his dick was more important than his policy). You have to speak in a language they understand.
And yes, the conservatives of today, especially the young ones and the ones that haven't been out of their $200k house in the upper-middle-class suburbs in months, are fascists, militarists, and heartless disciples of Randian social Darwinism. You can see it all over the net. People who have never been around the poor or people who have been HELPED by government programs sit in judgement.
If you went to college on a Stafford loan, you were helped by a gov't program. If you've ever been on unemployment, you were helped by a gov't program. It's not just hypocrisy, but pure ignorance. The arch-conservatives would gladly get rid of student loans because that's a way of assisting those who don't deserve it, who couldn't find a way to pay for themselves. And to these arch-conservatives, unemployment insurance is just a way for lazy fucks to leech off the system.
The extreme conservatism that's going on in the USA right now is calculating, cold, and heartless in nature, and it mixes this false patriotism with the moronic "america kicks ass" mentality and it makes me fucking ill. I won't change my mind on this point.
You think you're being a patriot, but what you're doing is joining in on nationalistic hysteria much like Lenin and Hitler fed their revolutions with.
I love America more than you, and I cannot stand to see what it stands for eaten from within by these madmen that just want to blow up muslims and other people that don't follow their religion. They want to throw out the constitution and replace it with the Uniform Commercial Code. How can you call yourself a patriot when you're on the side of people like this???
Damn right I'm ashamed of my fellow Americans. Unfortunately they've all become too soft to care.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to support your brother, but I refuse to support a single mother with 7 children , each one of them fathered by a different man ( who btw most likely is one welfare as well.)
OK, I agree with you in spirit.. but how do you separate the single mother with 7 kids and not make it a matter of civil liberties? If you say take away their right to litigate about it, then you have to take away the right of the deserving to litigate about it, also. It just isn't that cut-and-dried. The only way to do it fairly is no social programs at all, or to give everyone access to social programs.
This is a bit random in order, forgive me..
Politicians will pass laws that benefit the people who give them the money, and I we (voters) sit back and expect them to do the right thing, it will turn out poorly.
LP politicians will do the exact same thing. That's the problem with a representative gov't, it relies on the representatives to do the right thing by the people, and in most cases they don't because it's not the right thing by themselves.
A question for you - Should I be forced to put my money into a program, when I could put it else where and be benefitted more?
Depends. Do you care about your neighbors? If so, "forced" wouldn't be the word you used there. You'd be glad to help.
American society functioned just fine in the pre-FDR and pre-Depression days without Income tax and the "New Deal" programs. Therefore, it is naive to think that the only way to deal with these problems is to bring in Uncle Sam.
American society was quite different before then. Wealth wasn't tied up in securities, it was more about hard goods and currency. When wealth started going to the securities markets (stocks, commodities, etc.) that's when the economy of the country went down the toilet. There's a natural boom and bust cycle with business, and when peoples' consumer power is tied up in the business' success or failure, then it becomes a completely self-feeding cycle.
I have yet to hear of any attempts to write religion into the US laws.
The abolition of abortion rights is the big thing I'm thinking of. Such an effort attempts to legislate the fundamentalist/Catholic christian perspective.
Including "Under God" in the pledge, accomodates more than religion. It also accomodates atheists and agnostics. They might not have a "god" per say, but they do have a system of morals and values that can be seen as a "god."
That's not true. "Under [capital G] God" refers directly to the Christian god. This clause was added during the McCarthy era, when the Christian belief was used to differentiate the USA from the Soviet Union.
Your dick expands by making your hardware stretch farther? Is that it?
I upgraded to a better PC recently, and some games that weren't really accessible to me now are. That's my POV.
The need is driven by games. I'm a gamer, so I have to have all of this bleeding edge hardware.
However, I regularly tell non-gamers that they shouldn't upgrade unless their PC doesn't do what they want it to do. The push for faster-better-stronger hardware is out of hand, the average consumer doesn't need any more than a 600mhz.. but they do need lots of RAM and a big hard drive.
These are all terrible things, however, they are not conservativism. They are fascism. I am not a fascist, I am a conservative. To see the kinds of things that I support, please visit the libertarian party website here: http://www.lp.org/issues/ [lp.org]
Personally, I think Ashcroft and Bush are christian fundamentalist fascists, as opposed to conservative republicans.
The problem with the LP is that there's too much emphasis on what government can't do. If you make the government as powerless as the LP wants it to be, there will be anarchy and Turner Diaries-reading militia types will carve out little fiefdoms and things will fall apart rapidly. You have to have a compromise of lack of government involvement and regulation of things that can be harmful. The LP wants no compromise and while it's a refreshing viewpoint it's not feasible.
Most people don't argue with things like the Clean Air Act (if they do, they are major shareholders in heavy industry) and other legislation that improves the quality of their life. There IS some legislation that makes things better for us.
However, I don't want these republicans writing their fundamentalist religion into our laws. I'm afraid that by the time all these nutcases are done the US Code is going to look more like the Bible than the new international version does.
If prayer in schools ever becomes mandatory I'm definitely getting the hell out of the USA. My kids aren't going to live under that kind of mental tyranny.
I understand that the LP is against such things, so this is sort of a non-sequitur.
I do have forsight. I have enough forsight to see that if our country continues spending outrageous amounts of money on goverment programs that should be privatized, we are going to be seriously harmed. Government doesn't, and can't, know what is best for people. Government involvement in our lives can only harm us. By limited our freedoms to do with our money as we please (social security, welface, etc.) we are not able to effectively run our own lives.
My brother was a star football player and baseball player. He led his high school football team to the state championship, and worked, if not at a prestigious job, at a steady job. He's now 36 and totally crippled by rheumatoid arthritis. It hit him suddenly. He's on SSI, gov't disability.
Now, if the government didn't spend the money on the disability program that keeps his kids fed and clothed, I wouldn't have my niece and nephews, and my brother would be even more miserable than he is now.
Oh, and if it wasn't for medicare, my grandmother probably wouldn't be alive today.
Don't tell me that government programs are wasteful. Some of these things have dire consequences, not just whether some kid from the projects gets to go to school in the suburbs or whether a wheat farmer in Iowa gets his loss covered because someone dumped a bunch of cheap Russian wheat on the market.
You obviously have no actual argument, since you are forced to resort to feeble attempts at insults.
No, I attempt to insult you because I think you're a naive asshole kid.
yeah, and more americans are dying of stress-related illnesses than ever before. There used to be a CHOICE of whether you worked in a factory or in a professional job. Now, it's either go sit in a cube and be fucked daily by political mindless scum or be poor the rest of your life. That's not what I call progress.
Self-centeredness transcends party lines, it's a cultural thing. It does seem to align itself more with conservatism, because conservatism is all about protecting what's yours and to hell with everyone else. Liberalism at its base level is about sharing the wealth, but what they call liberal today is really just a more moderate conservatism.
The hawkish attitude does mainly manifest itself in conservative political parties. It's usually in response to whichever party happens to be a) the other majority and b) is in favor of peace. There have been times in the past where the democrats have been the hawks.
If my view is twisted, then what is correct? That which is proscribed by the Republican National Committee? Please enlighten me, o keeper of all wisdom.
I'm not arguing that you SHOULD behave one way or another. That's your decision to make. But you still have to follow the rules of wherever you live, unless you're willing to be an outlaw - if you can get away with it, more power to you.
It's a philosophy based on the Christian ethos that people are born good, become bad through sin, and redeem themselves, make themselves 'good' again, through "Christ-like" acts. Acts of charity are one of the things that the stories say Jesus did, so if you perform acts of charity, you're being like Jesus and you get +2 forgiveness points or whatever.
The fact of the matter is that people are animals, are born bad, and must be forced through some kind of threat to behave in an altruistic manner. Christianity threatens you with eternal damnation. The welfare system threatens you with jail time (if you don't pay your taxes). Etc.
Conservatives lose out, so why are they all for propping up unethical corporations? What about all the defense contractors that got fat under Reagan?
There's a difference in a line in the sand and the bottom falling out. If Enron hadn't killed themselves by faking everything about their business and spreading their revenue out among all the paper subsidiaries, they'd still be going. There was no great crackdown on them by righteous crusading Republicans, they went bankrupt. If they would have went bankrupt in 1999, you'd be saying Clinton drew the line in the sand. Oh wait, no you wouldn't.. everything that happens is the result of Reagan or one of the Bushes, Clinton didn't do anything - that's Republican doctrine, my bad.
what about the Uzi? This guy is flagrantly infringing on IMI's trademarks!
A real conservative would accept this since it would be created a survival of the fittest type of situation. The strong, i.e. worthy people would find a way to survive, and the earth would be cleansed of the weak. I'm surprised you don't want your scenario to happen.
Some liberals are anti business, which is why people who jump to conclusions tend to call us communists.
I'm all for business.. but businesses, when they have massive levels of resources at their disposal, will abuse their power. Ever seen "Matewan"? Or "Roger and Me"? Corporations, when not held accountable, will become like feudal kingdoms. Let them eat cake and all that. If corporate accountability existed, the corporation would be a good thing.
Supply-side is another word for corporate welfare. But that's beside the point. Liberalism is not a dirty word to me. Neither is conservatism.
I'll have a nice day as long as your boys in Washington don't prohibit me from it. Since I'm not a Christian and registered independent, that might happen sometime soon. For a party that's against big government, there's sure a lot of infrastructure being put into place by these Republicans to control the people.
What the fuck are you smoking? Unions were busted left and right by the Reagan mafia and most of our heavy industry was shipped over to Japan and Europe because they refused to tax the imports. They invited the Japs in to buy our companies because the Yen was stronger than the Dollar. There's no national pride in Republicanism.
The inverse of charity is taxes. I'd respect your point if you had said anything about abolishing the federal income tax that currently pays for these programs.
What is the tax money going to be used for when the government gets out of the charity business? Is ALL of it going to go into CEO/board of director types' pockets instead of just some of it?
compared to the destruction of the american working class, which was performed by Reagan/Bush, a few hostages in Iran is peanuts. I'd rather not have those people and have some hope for the future. That was just a feel-good story.
The Soviet Union would have died anyway. It's head was too big to be supported by its body.
So you'd rather leave your parents and all the old people that built the world you lived in to die of illness and starvation so you can keep your excesses and build your portfolio. Got it.
Hope you're willing to volunteer for body detail, because there are a lot of boomers that will need to be buried.
"Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism
I would prefer this to a state that gradually declines into communism through over-taxation, an excess of government programs, and an oppressive government. "
Let's see what happens when your right to travel interstate is taken away because only terrorists and the military have to travel that far. Or when some cop runs your plates, connects to the national database of offenses, and sees that one time you set the high school bathroom trash can on fire, and decides to beat you and jail you as a possible offender. Or when the government disperses anti-war protestors at gunpoint ala the Italian Fascists.
You have no foresight and thus I conclude that you are a college student whose parents were yuppie scum.
You can't tell me your desire to find a job was any kind of altruistic urge to pay the government back for your education. You needed to feed yourself and pay your rent, just like anyone else. Don't get on a high horse because you happen to feel guilty about taking the same assistance as the unwashed.
You have a point about the free handouts. The problem is that the GOP propoganda lumps job training and education into the same category as free money. It's all "Welfare".
Oh, and what happens when you give a CEO a free pass? Enron. Worldcom. The actions of Ken Lay and the Worldcom mafia destroyed the financial security of tens of thousands of people. If you don't understand, massive layoffs are not a solution to the problem of poverty.
What about Medicare? Should the elderly have been smart enough to save enough money to afford what doctors and pharmaceutical companies charge them? Or is there SOME room for compassion? What about social security?
See, there's the bullying attitude that is the trademark of conservativism.
"Liberals are two-faced"
"maybe liberalism truely is indefensible"
"the only way for liberal candidates to win elections is through obfuscation and redirection"
I'm so sick of anyone to the right of Clinton bringing up the Big Government shit. We would not be here if it wasn't for big government, you moron. Big government restored the US economy and allowed us and our allies to save Europe in WWII. Or would you rather still be living in Great Depression conditions just so that your precious Big Government wouldn't exist?
In the 50s, do you think Eisenhower was against big government? Under him the cabinet grew, two states were added (bringing with them more congressmen), and the military-industrial complex was born. Not to mention stuff like the House Un-American Activities committee, which makes the PATRIOT act and this HomeSec shit look like high school civics.
And don't even bring up the hypocritical bullshit about your people being morally superior. Your whole post was an obfuscation and redirection, Republican boy.
It's not the Muslims that want to blow us up, it's Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad and the PLO and Iraq and all the other perversions of Islam. The bad part is that the Republicans have, with their Crusade lines and their governmental philosophies, have set us up to be the Christian analog of Al Qaeda. I'm not a Christian and my country does not represent me on this point.
There are a few muslims in my office, and they're not sitting in their cubes building bombs.
First of all, You will not change my mind by pointing out flaws in my language. So what if I don't express myself perfectly? I'm not claiming to be a master of the language such as Hemingway or Fitzgerald.
Secondly, this is fighting fire with fire. If the conservative pundits want to reduce it down schoolyard style bullying and name-calling, well, the people have demonstrated that they don't get it when one party tries to be above that (see the Clinton years for proof, where the location of his dick was more important than his policy). You have to speak in a language they understand.
And yes, the conservatives of today, especially the young ones and the ones that haven't been out of their $200k house in the upper-middle-class suburbs in months, are fascists, militarists, and heartless disciples of Randian social Darwinism. You can see it all over the net. People who have never been around the poor or people who have been HELPED by government programs sit in judgement.
If you went to college on a Stafford loan, you were helped by a gov't program. If you've ever been on unemployment, you were helped by a gov't program. It's not just hypocrisy, but pure ignorance. The arch-conservatives would gladly get rid of student loans because that's a way of assisting those who don't deserve it, who couldn't find a way to pay for themselves. And to these arch-conservatives, unemployment insurance is just a way for lazy fucks to leech off the system.
The extreme conservatism that's going on in the USA right now is calculating, cold, and heartless in nature, and it mixes this false patriotism with the moronic "america kicks ass" mentality and it makes me fucking ill. I won't change my mind on this point.
This is laughable, yet pathetic.
You think you're being a patriot, but what you're doing is joining in on nationalistic hysteria much like Lenin and Hitler fed their revolutions with.
I love America more than you, and I cannot stand to see what it stands for eaten from within by these madmen that just want to blow up muslims and other people that don't follow their religion. They want to throw out the constitution and replace it with the Uniform Commercial Code. How can you call yourself a patriot when you're on the side of people like this???
Damn right I'm ashamed of my fellow Americans. Unfortunately they've all become too soft to care.